Wikipedia:Miscellany For Deletion
![]() | Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). |
![]() | Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information. |
Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.
Filtered versions of the page are available at
Information on the process
What may be nominated for deletion here:
- Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText: and the various Talk: namespaces
- Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
- Pages in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
- Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.
Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.
Before nominating a page for deletion
Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
Duplications in draftspace? |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
Please familiarize yourself with the following policies
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
- Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
- Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
- Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
- Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes
How to list pages for deletion
Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:
Instructions on listing pages for deletion:
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.
|
Administrator instructions
V | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 13 | 73 | 86 |
TfD | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 43 | 40 | 83 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.
Archived discussions
A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.
Current discussions
- Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.
September 11, 2024
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Daniel Larson (Singer-Songwriter) |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Speedied. Having reviewed the draft and its sources, I find that this is indeed an attack page, written solely to disparage and mock its subject with no other purpose. Put differently, the page contains multiple BLP violations and there is no prior acceptable version of the page to revert to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
This subject is mainly known for being the target of a long-term harassment and trolling campaign similar to that of Chris Chan, and the page should be deleted for similar reasons as Chris Chan. The draft was only created to continue the harassment (e.g. the entire "Career" section is obviously facetious), and there is a wiki linked in the draft that documents his life for the purpose of harassment. The subject has practically no coverage in non-tabloid RS beyond his arrest ([1]). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
|
WP:RFORK of data clump. Paradoctor (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as an unnecessary copy and fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
September 9, 2024
Seems like abandoned project of single Wiki user. Not sure if an entire Wiki project is required for this. Wikibear47 (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete we do not need this WikiProject. And also the creator was blocked for copyright violations. Catfurball (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - An unused WikiProject. The project page had 94 pageviews in 2023. That was total pageviews in the year, or about 0.3 daily pageviews. The work of a Wikiproject is done mostly on its project talk page. The project talk page had 28 pageviews in 2023. That is less than 0.1 daily pageviews. This project never launched. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:RFORK of Public administration. Paradoctor (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - A very incomplete copy and so a fragmentary fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
September 8, 2024
WP:RFORK of Varsity letter. Paradoctor (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Not exactly a copy and so not exactly a redundant fork, but as a user page, this is a fake article. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:RFORK of 2013 Peru bus disaster, untouched since 2023-07. Paradoctor (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Soft Delete - Not exactly a redundant fork because an expansion of the article. Treat as an abandoned draft to expand the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:RFORK of Sodnom Baldan. This user and User:Baldan Sodnom may be a pair of socks. Paradoctor (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral at this time. Not a redundant fork, because on machine translation from Mongolian, does not appear to be the same. But maybe should be treated as abandoned. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? I didn't say WP:COPIES! The subject is the same, not the content. Paradoctor (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES from Triple DES (2018-05-22), Bosnian translation. Paradoctor (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - If this was being used as a draft translation, it has been abandoned after six years. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES from Triple DES (2018-05-21), Bosnian translation. Paradoctor (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This and the other copy are both six years old and abandoned. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:RFORK of Vaddera. Paradoctor (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - This is not a redundant fork of Vaddera. It is partly an expansion of Vaddera, and partly all sorts of other things, and is in a sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:RFORK, 2017 draft that apparently never went anywhere, and was obsoleted by someone's else draft in 2023. Paradoctor (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep unless the nominator provides a link to the other draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Earliest edit I could find. Please note that that sandbox was move to article space six weeks earlier, and again five days later.[2].
Non-notable organization, created by COI (and likely UPE) editor; editor blocked for WP:ORGNAME and has never sought unblock. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Soft Delete - Treat this as an abandoned draft. The originator could have requested rename and moved this to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- User:Valentina valentine/Sarita Khurana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
WP:RFORK of Sarita Khurana. The first version of Sarita Khurana was draftified, and second creation was deleted before the third one stuck. Paradoctor (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete another redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- User:Vanished user 24kwjf10h32h/translated english2spanish articles/Rickrolling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
WP:COPIES from Rickrolling (2008-06-21). Paradoctor (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - This appears to be another abandoned translated copy, with a long strange history, but rubbish that has been kicked around for sixteen years is still rubbish. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete The complex page history seems to be a product of the creator's own complex history, which has led to them being banned and vanishing. Whatever they may or may not have gotten up to is not directly related, but it does mean that they aren't expected to ever be coming back to work on it more. No need to keep it forever. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
September 6, 2024
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Popular pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Useless only has 1 page and apparently only has ever had 1 page as per page history Isla🏳️⚧ 23:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- It used to have most of the pages in the projectspace back in 2021. Hasn't been touched by anyone since 2021, and since then the bot malfunctioned and trimmed it down to exactly 1 page and I doubt there's any interest within the project to bring it back. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Mark historical' and revert to last functional version, no good reason to delete it entirely as it didn't cause harm. This is not a case of a malfunctioning bot; it's a case of garbage in, garbage out as, until my actions at Talk:Winter Storm Helena (which I undeleted, redirected, then re-deleted), it was indeed the only page listed under WikiProject Severe weather in the assessments special page search results. I've removed it from the bot's config page. I barely knew anything about how the popular pages lists were generated or page assessments special pages before this discussion so I've learnt several things about them by skim-reading the documentation and realising that the severe weather popular pages list began to malfunction around the time the templates were merged/deleted. Graham87 (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES from SEG-Y (2024-03-25). Paradoctor (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete this redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES from List of Doraemon films (2017-12-12). Paradoctor (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete another redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES from List of Doraemon films (2017-12-12). Paradoctor (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete this redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if WP:COPIES applies here. The page is clearly a Portuguese translation of the 2014-11-28 version of Shy (band). The Portuguese wikipedia has no article "Shy" and there is no "Trojan" article about the band. Paradoctor (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - The intent of the guideline about copies is clear. Copies may be kept for a limited period of time for drafting purposes or similar experimental purposes. Creating a Portuguese article about the band by translation is a valid purpose for a limited period of time. That doesn't mean ten years. This is an abandoned translated copy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES from Bread roll (2014-03-09). Paradoctor (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES from User:KT Business Consultants/sandbox/Vinod K Jacob (2021-01-19). See also this edit comment. Paradoctor (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as a copy and redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:COPIES of Pi (film) (2008-05-07). Paradoctor (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - An incomplete copy and a redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Arguably a WP:HOAX, but opting for MfD as WP:G3 requires it to be fake to the point of vandalism. However, this is just plain WP:MADEUP and will never be suitable for Wikipedia out of all likelihood. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete this and all other similar drafts by User:Sisixive (listed immediately after this one), as I pointed out at the Teahouse. Mike Turnbull (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete after having read the explanation on the user talk page. These conlangs were made up by the author, who appears to be using Wikipedia as a web host rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Arguably a WP:HOAX, but opting for MfD as WP:G3 requires it to be fake to the point of vandalism. However, this is just plain WP:MADEUP and will never be suitable for Wikipedia out of all likelihood. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete after having read the explanation on the user talk page. These conlangs were made up by the author, who appears to be using Wikipedia as a web host rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, noting it is completely unsourced. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Arguably a WP:HOAX, but opting for MfD as WP:G3 requires it to be fake to the point of vandalism. However, this is just plain WP:MADEUP and will never be suitable for Wikipedia out of all likelihood. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete after having read the explanation on the user talk page. These conlangs were made up by the author, who appears to be using Wikipedia as a web host rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No source and fails WP:Notability Wikibear47 (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Arguably a WP:HOAX, but opting for MfD as WP:G3 requires it to be fake to the point of vandalism. However, this is just plain WP:MADEUP and will never be suitable for Wikipedia out of all likelihood. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep - We don't need to delete drafts that were made up and were found by rag picking. They can be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)- Delete after having read the explanation on the user talk page. These conlangs were made up by the author, who appears to be using Wikipedia as a web host rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Arguably a WP:HOAX, but opting for MfD as WP:G3 requires it to be fake to the point of vandalism. However, this is just plain WP:MADEUP and will never be suitable for Wikipedia out of all likelihood. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Drafts should only be deleted if the hoax is either obvious or clear but unobvious. This should be left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)- Delete after having read the explanation on the user talk page. These conlangs were made up by the author, who appears to be using Wikipedia as a web host rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Arguably a WP:HOAX, but opting for MfD as WP:G3 requires it to be fake to the point of vandalism. However, this is just plain WP:MADEUP and will never be suitable for Wikipedia out of all likelihood. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep - May be a hoax, but drafts should not be deleted because they may be hoaxes, only if they are hoaxes. They should be left alone for six months, but this has restarted the calendar. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)- Delete after having read the explanation on the user talk page. These conlangs were made up by the author, who appears to be using Wikipedia as a web host rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Arguably a WP:HOAX, but opting for MfD as WP:G3 requires it to be fake to the point of vandalism. However, this is just plain WP:MADEUP and will never be suitable for Wikipedia out of all likelihood. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Drafts should only be deleted as hoaxes if we are almost certain that they are hoaxes. Otherwise they should be left to wither. The nomination has restarted the calendar. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)- But I am certain it's a hoax in the sense of being made up. G3 only applies to bad faith situations.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete after having read the explanation on the user talk page. These conlangs were made up by the author, who appears to be using Wikipedia as a web host rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Agree with User:Jasper Deng. The originator is acting in misdirected good faith, and so is not a vandall, but is not here to contribute, but to play around in misguided good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Template subpage with no parent page, documentation, or categories, transcluded just once in a user talk page. Created in 2013. Subst and delete. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note that this may be speedy-delete-eligible. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:EOTY. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Does not appear to be exactly the same as the one that was deleted, but is unreadable and useless. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – it is not exactly the same as the deleted one (the deleted one had an equally-illegible black
|id=2012
on a dark blue background), but it is still useless. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:RFORK of Yaël Braun-Pivet. Paradoctor (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete this redundant fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
September 5, 2024
WP:RFORK of Lorem ipsum. Paradoctor (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - User came, created this fragmentary redundant fork, departed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:RFORK of Television and the Public Interest. Paradoctor (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - User came, created this fork, and departed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Recently created information page by BarntToust to compile the various publishers of sources used on this site. I do not think a separate page is needed for this and the contents can easily covered by what is already established at WP:Reliable sources and the articles themselves. Full disclosure, the editor who created this has started repeatedly adding publisher params to cite temps on the article Superman (2025 film) and has insisted at my talk page about adding them to other related articles after I informed them it was not needed, and this page appears to be an extension of that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to me like you wholly misunderstand to basis of publisher parameter on citations. They are higher-detail citations and are used per inline for extra detail on articles. Articles such as The Last of Us and The Last of Us (TV series), and substituents have been promoted extensively for Good Article status, so I have no idea why you are so against it.
- Draftify this thing until it is developed. It looks like a good idea for a promising directory for new editors like me who might want a place to look for this information without having to sprawl out looking for them in each article. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep and Tag as to required improvements. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Userify as ATD, which I assume is essentially what YodaYogaYogurt154 has in mind (articles are draftified, project pages are userified). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- User:VogueTortellini/Our Bodies, Ourselves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
WP:RFORK of Our Bodies, Ourselves § Boston Women's Health Book Collective. Paradoctor (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - As a redundant fork, will get out of sync with the article, and is not serving a purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Both this and Draft:St. Emma Military Academy were created on the same day by the same user. This looks like an WP:RFORK to me. Paradoctor (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - The user edits intermittently and is maybe working on the draft. This sandbox may be used to improve the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
September 4, 2024
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wenamy/sandbox |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC) WP:COPIES from Variabilichromis moorii (2013-11-15). Paradoctor (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Johan8787/Sample page |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC) WP:COPIES from West Bengal Board of Primary Education (2022-04-15). Paradoctor (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
|
Old business
Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 12:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC) ended today on 12 September 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action. |
August 31, 2024
Portal not broad enough in scope to necesitate a portal, not updated since 2022, and entirely encompassed by Portal:South East England DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep — perfectly functioning portal, it doesn't matter that it hasn't been updated recently; there's plenty of pictures and content to get cycled through. No reason to delete.
- Cremastra (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Something being functioning doesn't necesitate keeping it. It had a total of 6 daily pageviews in 2023, sometimes being 0 views a day. DimensionalFusion (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- @DimensionalFusion I'm sorry, but I really don't understand this reasoning. Just because people aren't looking at something all the time isn't a reason to delete it. It's a reason to link it from more places. Even if it is maximally linked (which is unlikely), there's still no actual reason to delete it. Maybe people will use it more in the future. It is still a net benefit to the encyclopedia. There's plenty of information about Hampshire. There is absolutely zero benefit to deleting this; this nomination amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cremastra (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Something being functioning doesn't necesitate keeping it. It had a total of 6 daily pageviews in 2023, sometimes being 0 views a day. DimensionalFusion (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - There are three problems with this portal. First, it is little viewed. It had 6 daily pageviews in the year 2023, while the lead article had 765 daily pageviews. Second, it is not maintained. It relies on subpages in Portal:South East England, specifically on those that apply to Hampshire, and there is no indication that this list is maintained. It includes 68 articles, which is a reasonable number. Third, it uses the obsolete architecture of subpages that are partial redundant forks of pages, and so are not updated when the pages are updated. This can lead to discrepancies such as biographies of living persons being displayed for persons who have died. We don't need portals that display information that is no longer correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Strong keep - it's functioning, it is regularly monitored and maintained (by me). The fact it hasn't needed updating in the last couple of years shows that it's a low maintenance portal thanks mainly to automation, that's not an indication that it isn't being looked after. And a county like Hampshire is plenty big enough and broad enough in scope to warrant a portal. Page views are irrelevant, we don't delete stuff on Wikipedia based on page views. And ultimately it does no harm - deleting it would take up more disk space than leaving it alone, it's not using loads of processing power, it offers readers a great way of discovering content, so deleting it would be a net loss to the project. Really sad to see nominations like this happening again, I thought the idiotic "war on portals" was behind us. WaggersTALK 08:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also it's not true to say it hasn't been updated since 2022. Winchester College was added to the selected articles just a few months ago in November, after reaching Good Article status, for example. WaggersTALK 08:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- What's this "war on portals"? Portal:Hampshire isn't helping readers discover content (as evidenced by the low pageviews) and it's essentially a smaller duplication of Portal:South East England. Something being "functional" doesn't mean it should be kept. I disagree that it's reguarly monitored and maintained – consider that for WikiProjects (there's no criteria for Portal deletion), they should be marked as inactive if there haven't been any major edits to the main project page in four months. There haven't been any edits to the main portal page since 2022, and no major edits since 2021. So we have a portal maintained only by one person and automatic actions, low pageviews, and another portal that encompasses all the content of this portal.
- The "selected article" section literally comes from Portal:South East England's selection page for its articles. DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- The main portal page is a framework, it does not need updating. The content is set from elsewhere and I updated some of it just today. WaggersTALK 12:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per nom. Wikipedia editors will happily delete portals for entire countries but not subregions of English speaking countries. Too narrow for a portal, and it seems that there is another portal with a broader scope. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors will happily delete portals for entire countries but not subregions of English speaking countries.
Is this not WP:OTHERSTUFF? Cremastra (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- Precisely, it's not a valid deletion justification. I trust the closing admin will take note of that. WaggersTALK 07:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies. But the point still stands about this being significantly too narrow for a portal, and low page views. -1ctinus📝🗨 13:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
August 30, 2024
- Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
I marked this as historical [3] eight years ago, as it was not being used, but that was removed nearly a year later when someone decided to start editing it again. I simply do not think this page is appropriate. A self-selected hall-of-fame, with no clear criteria for inclusion, no apparent rules of any kind, no new entries in over three years, and a talk page that has not been used for discussion of the scope and purpose of the page in fourteen years.
Additionally, there are a number of entries in this list of supposedly great people who turned out to be truly awful people, one of whom still actively trolls Wikipedia on a regular basis, and several others who were socking and vote stacking. In fact, it was two of these offenders that created the hall of fame in the first place. These people do not need a memorial to their deceit or dishonesty hosted on Wikipedia.
There's just too many problems here for WP to continue hosting this. Just Step Sideways 20:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Case not nearly made. Even assuming that all that is really asked for is blank and archive, keeping the history available, the case is not not nearly made. It is not nearly good enough to delete Wikipedia history on the basis that some are alleged to be awful. It may be difficult to write an acceptable essay about how, objectively, some editors, were awful, but to justify the deletion of this history demands it.
- There is no attempt to substantiate ongoing harm. There is no attempt to argue that all involved, especially the modern editors, are awful, let alone an objective net negative contribution to Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
It may be difficult to write an acceptable essay about how, objectively, some editors, were awful, but to justify the deletion of this history demands it.
I'm not sure I understand. I have to write an essay explaining why two banned trolls, one of whom is still actively harassing people over grudges from like 10-15 years ago, are not good people? I mean, that isn't even my only point but to be required to write an essay to justify one deletion discussion is an entirely new concept to me. Just Step Sideways 18:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)- The ARS team had an admirable motivation, in my opinion, obtained from a distance. Rescuing notable topics sent to AfD is a good thing. So what happened? If you want to selectively delete the history of a a prominent feature of Wikipedia history, I expect there to be a high level summary, at least. I read your nomination as a proposal to retrospectively shut down the ARS, and before agreeing to deletion, I want to see the history documented. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I read your nomination as a proposal to retrospectively shut down the ARS
Well, that's odd because the ARS is still active and I have not in any way proposed shutting the whole thing down. I just don't think we ought to host this one specific page, which has no criteria for inclusion and is therefore just a randomly selected list of AFD discussions that random people have decided to highlight.
- The ARS team had an admirable motivation, in my opinion, obtained from a distance. Rescuing notable topics sent to AfD is a good thing. So what happened? If you want to selectively delete the history of a a prominent feature of Wikipedia history, I expect there to be a high level summary, at least. I read your nomination as a proposal to retrospectively shut down the ARS, and before agreeing to deletion, I want to see the history documented. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
and here's that executive summary you asked for
|
---|
|
Just Step Sideways 19:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. This page is also the more recent work of JGHowes (talk · contribs) and Beccaynr (talk · contribs). SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but, why? What process decides what debates are hall of Fame material? As far as I can tell it is entirely at the whim of literally anyone and there is no process.
- And by "more recent" we are talking about three years ago. Just Step Sideways 20:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. This page is also the more recent work of JGHowes (talk · contribs) and Beccaynr (talk · contribs). SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - I, for one, hardly see the listing of an editor here as glorifying them, but only as indicating the the ARS glorifies them. If the ARS continues to exist, it can continue to have its heroes, and other editors can ignore the list. If someone wants to delete the ARS itself, I am willing to take part in yet another vote to delete it as not serving any purpose in the 2020s. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - There's no value at all in maintaining this page created by socks and/or trolls that lionizes many of the same, particularly when it lists no guidelines or methods of selection, and is not actively edited or curated. Wikipedia is not social media. Page is highly problematic as it appears to perpetuate a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with comments like "Proved that an article that doesn't have a NPOV stance doesn't mean it isn't valuable", like a list of victories over "enemies". Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Blank and maybe redirect to WP:ARS. This seems a reasonable compromise between those considering it historical and those considering it inappropriate. If I can offer a broader suggestion, perhaps we should BLAR all ARS pages and then WP:ESPERANZA it. As part of the "newer generation" of editors (c. 2022), I've only ever heard of ARS spoken in the tone of a horror story. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I strongly prefer deleting it outright for the reasons I've already detailed, but I could live with this. Just Step Sideways 22:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (2nd nomination) to move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein, but was moved back by its creator in 2022 after zero substantive changes were made to the portal. If this was 2022, I would revert this unilateral move against the MFD consensus. But this is almost two years later and WP:SILENCE is consensus, so I am back at MFD seeking consensus for deletion from portalspace for the same reasons – primarily because This subject is arguably not broad enough to exist as a standard portal
. No objection to projectspace-fying, if the WikiProject wishes to keep it around. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Move to project space per previous discussion. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Move to project space as before DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - There is no need for this so-called portal and no need to delete this so-called portal. This portal is a large menu. There is none of the usual portal code behind the façade. What is behind the façade is a listing of more than 120 article titles, at which I stopped counting them and did not have a convenient tool to automate the counting. This menu is almost completely unused. In the year 2023, it had an average of 1 daily pageview, while the lead article had an average of 959 daily pageviews. But the user who went to the portal got to look over a list of articles and view the ones that they wanted. I am generally skeptical of portals. This looks like a portal, but it is a menu, and menus are useful for navigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
August 27, 2024
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Articles by quality statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Transcludable non-template page redundant with User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Palaeontology, which uses a Toollabs tool instead of categories and is regularly updated by a bot. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment A template that is used only on this page has been TfD'd at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_27#Template:Assessment_row. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- No need to delete. Simply replace the page content with a transclusion of the WP 1.0 bot table, which I have seen in many other projects. This will save fixing the many incoming links. – Fayenatic London 19:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have implemented that transclusion, in order to update links between category pages. – Fayenatic London 08:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @LaundryPizza03: Is the alternative implemented by Fayenatic London sufficient to address your concern? I can close this as withdrawn if you are satisfied. --RL0919 (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why not just redirect? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- That is a question best addressed to User:Fayenatic london. I'm hoping to find a consensus among the participants in the discussion, not to become a participant myself. --RL0919 (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @LaundryPizza03: does that have the same result? If so, by all means redirect instead of transcluding. I used transclusion because that's what I've seen before on these table pages for other projects. – Fayenatic London 08:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- That is a question best addressed to User:Fayenatic london. I'm hoping to find a consensus among the participants in the discussion, not to become a participant myself. --RL0919 (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why not just redirect? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
August 24, 2024
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover (2nd nomination) |
---|
The result of the discussion was: blank. (non-admin closure) Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I nominated this 12 years ago and it was closed as a speedy keep. The fact that this is not historically useful to the workings of the encyclopedia plus the Mediation Committee since closing up shop should justify this page being deleted. Thebirdlover (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
|